On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:27:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

It's was vomit inducing to hear the former administration use the
"finish the job" excuse in order to honor those who "paid the ultimate
price."

Finishing the job in this case would be to uphold the law so that
others don't have to pay the ultimate price for lawbreaking liars.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:27:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

It's was vomit inducing to hear the former administration use the
"finish the job" excuse in order to honor those who "paid the ultimate
price."

Finishing the job in this case would be to uphold the law so that
others don't have to pay the ultimate price for lawbreaking liars.


I am very thankful that I never had to rely on you to watch my back.
That's not an insult. It's reality. You are better off doing whatever it
is you do and having the right to think whatever you think and so am I.

Eisboch

On Wed, 6 May 2009 17:36:53 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:27:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

It's was vomit inducing to hear the former administration use the
"finish the job" excuse in order to honor those who "paid the ultimate
price."

Finishing the job in this case would be to uphold the law so that
others don't have to pay the ultimate price for lawbreaking liars.


I am very thankful that I never had to rely on you to watch my back.
That's not an insult. It's reality. You are better off doing whatever it
is you do and having the right to think whatever you think and so am I.

Eisboch

The point was that it was a ****ty excuse to stay in Iraq. It was a
doomed escapade from the start. Bush 1 knew it and stayed out.

I'm extremely loyal and, had I been in Iraq watching anyone's back,
I'd have given the full measure of my life.

I'm damned glad that I'm not in that situation and very sorry for
those who are.

Now I want to see justice done. Those that lied us into this
catastrophe should be willing to face the full measure of what it
means to be nation of laws. It was among the things that Bush
promised us when he campaigned for the presidency.

"jps" wrote in message
...


Now I want to see justice done. Those that lied us into this
catastrophe should be willing to face the full measure of what it
means to be nation of laws. It was among the things that Bush
promised us when he campaigned for the presidency.


I understand how you feel. May I ask a question?

If someone says something and is 100 percent convinced that what he/she is
saying is accurate and truthful, did they lie if later events or information
proves them to be in error?

This seems to be the heart of the Bush issue. Many are absolutely
convinced that he and his administration made up a bunch of stories and
justifications to invade Iraq. These accusations ... and that's all they
are ... have somehow become "the truth" in the circle of armchair, Monday
morning generals.

"The truth" becomes more and more confirmed as the people involved jump ship
and change their tune as more accurate information is acquired. Perfect
example are the many Democrats who were all "for the war" before they were
against it, even dating back to Clinton's administration. It also includes
those who, for their own personal objectives, want to distance themselves
from those who had to make the decisions at the time.

I remain unconvinced that Bush made up the stories. There was (and still
isn't) anything to be gained personally by him. He may have been wrong in
his assessment, but I don't think he outright lied. For that reason, I
keep an open mind.

Here's another example of how issues become causes. Not too many months
ago the main topic of debate regarding water boarding was if it was indeed a
form of torture. To many, that question still remains. However, the
media coverage and hype has produced a general consensus that it *is*
torture. As I type, I am listening to a Harvard law professor stating that
officials in Bush's administration have admitted to "torturing" detainees.
But, don't you see, that's under the newly adopted, post event definition
that water boarding *is* torture. If public opinion (now an assumption)
was otherwise, then Bush and his administration could not be accused of
torture by authorizing water boarding.

See what I mean?

Eisboch

On Wed, 6 May 2009 18:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .


Now I want to see justice done. Those that lied us into this
catastrophe should be willing to face the full measure of what it
means to be nation of laws. It was among the things that Bush
promised us when he campaigned for the presidency.


I understand how you feel. May I ask a question?

If someone says something and is 100 percent convinced that what he/she is
saying is accurate and truthful, did they lie if later events or information
proves them to be in error?

This seems to be the heart of the Bush issue. Many are absolutely
convinced that he and his administration made up a bunch of stories and
justifications to invade Iraq. These accusations ... and that's all they
are ... have somehow become "the truth" in the circle of armchair, Monday
morning generals.

"The truth" becomes more and more confirmed as the people involved jump ship
and change their tune as more accurate information is acquired. Perfect
example are the many Democrats who were all "for the war" before they were
against it, even dating back to Clinton's administration. It also includes
those who, for their own personal objectives, want to distance themselves
from those who had to make the decisions at the time.

It was perfectly obvious to me that they were rushing into war. The
inspectors were pulled out, there was no effort at diplomacy. Saddam
was bluffing and still thought the Americans were his allies.

This was about Bush's ego, finishing the job his father walked away
from, gaining control of a large pool of oil for his and his father's
business buddies and thrusting his military pelvis at the region.

They didn't want to know the truth, they wanted to invade. You really
should do a little research. The plans were in place before 911,
which almost gives some credibility to conspiracy theorists charge
that the administration knew there was going to be an attack in the
US.

I don't share that fantasy but allow for the potential. Stranger
things have happened.

I remain unconvinced that Bush made up the stories. There was (and still
isn't) anything to be gained personally by him. He may have been wrong in
his assessment, but I don't think he outright lied. For that reason, I
keep an open mind.

Too much information says otherwise. They had it in mind before 911.

People who understand interogation techniques know that torture is
more likely to garner bad information than good. The techniques
employed by the administration were developed by the Chinese to foster
false confessions to be used for propaganda. They didn't care about
the truth. Many think these techniques were used by the US for the
same effect. Early use of these methods were focused on trying to
establish a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Here's another example of how issues become causes. Not too many months
ago the main topic of debate regarding water boarding was if it was indeed a
form of torture. To many, that question still remains. However, the
media coverage and hype has produced a general consensus that it *is*
torture. As I type, I am listening to a Harvard law professor stating that
officials in Bush's administration have admitted to "torturing" detainees.
But, don't you see, that's under the newly adopted, post event definition
that water boarding *is* torture. If public opinion (now an assumption)
was otherwise, then Bush and his administration could not be accused of
torture by authorizing water boarding.

The United States EXECUTED Japanese who performed water torture on our
troops.

Need I say more?

See what I mean?

I do but I respectfully disagre.

Eisboch

"jps" wrote in message
...


It was perfectly obvious to me that they were rushing into war. The
inspectors were pulled out, there was no effort at diplomacy. Saddam
was bluffing and still thought the Americans were his allies.


Over six months of UN debates, and insistance on compliance with prior UN
resolutions were not an attempt at a diplomatic solution?


This was about Bush's ego, finishing the job his father walked away
from, gaining control of a large pool of oil for his and his father's
business buddies and thrusting his military pelvis at the region.

Another "fact" that has absolutely no basis or evidence of truth.
Please point out how Bush gained control of a large pool of oil for his
father's business buddies.


They didn't want to know the truth, they wanted to invade. You really
should do a little research. The plans were in place before 911,


Indeed. The contingency plans were formulated during the latter part of
Clinton's term.
Clinton didn't execute them for a number of reasons, including the fact that
he was on
his way out and didn't need or want the legacy. So, the issue was handed
over to Bush.

Remember .... Many in Congress who were "in the know" advocated military
action against Iraq *during* Clinton's last years in office. The list
includes a host of well known Democrats who now have changed their tune and
claim Bush lied to them. This is the thing that gets me the most. If
intelligence warranted these people to publically call for Clinton to take
action, how the hell can they later claim that it was Bush who lied to
them?

The answer is that it is politics at it's worst. Somehow these characters
can convincingly explain to many that, "They were for the war before they
were against it" and come out sounding like honest Abes.

Bull****. All you have to do is apply a little common sense to see through
this crap.

Eisboch

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.


I understand your morality. Unfortunately it's not reality.

Eisboch